For the record, this question is about the general election. The Republican primaries are settled. Personally, I like Mike and hope Huckabee can win some more states – especially Texas. Even if he isn’t the nominee, it will show the continued influence of evangelicals.

As usual, my concern isn’t John McCain in the White House its Obama or *shudder* The Clinton’s for eight more years. I may not enjoy some of the things McCain has done or said but he has at least DONE something other than talk.

If you want the Democrat agenda on social and economic issues, then Obama or Clinton will deliver.

If you want some semblance of conservative values and the appointment of conservative judges, then McCain is the choice. Huckaby has no chance at all and I believe it ridiculous for evangelicals to continue in this vein under the guise of some kind of value voting. A vote that doesn’t count is of no value.

I would hope those who sit this one out will have the integrity to just keep silent until the next one. If you give up by default, then just hump up like a jackass in a hailstorm and take whatever comes. And yes, I plagerized LBJ on that phrase. 🙂

The question to this thread really should have been “Do we want to continue with a Republican and a nearly undiluted bankrupcy of morals and corruption or should we pick a Democrat and hope that more than just a few will be served”.

Frankly, I don’t know how anyone who voted for Bush in ’04 can stand to look at themselves in the mirror and then talk trash about Democrats.

*Democrats are morally bankrupt — generally speaking as a party (anti-marriage, anti-life, etc.)

*Republicans (aka ‘Bush administration leadership’) are hamstrung by torture, war, missed opportunities to take high-road (why wouldn’t Bush do more against abortion for instance), and an innate ability to let the Democrats set the agenda (read as “reactionary instead of proactive.)

*If a vote for McCain is just to “keep the Dems out” then how is that better than the current brand of GOP? Especially if all we get is more of the same. And that is just about what McCain seems to be saying.

* Christianity in our country has become so watered-down that the Huckabees/Pauls, who bring a strong non-apologetic Christianity to bear, are not being supported by the young, supposedly vibrant, conservative Christians. They seem to be taking the easy way out and letting the “popular opinion” lead the way instead of an unwavering Christian worldview.

Why should my vote go to a person, regardless of political affiliation, that does not espouse my worldview? That is the same as denouncing my belief, my faith, my God. Unless McCain becomes less like his Democratic rivals, I see no hope for political leadership.

Sadly, I cannot see myself pulling the lever to vote for McCain. I read in a recent periodical asking which was worse: voting for a liberal who says they are liberal, or voting for a liberal who says he is a conservative?

McCain’s spotty conservative track record does not give me any encouragement as to the possibilities for this coming election. Yes, I am of the ilk that I believe I need to have someone to vote for rather than to have someone to vote against.

I am saddened that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee did not receive more traction and attention. But it does seem to me that Ron Paul’s message will get traction over the next generation. I can understand why he was part of the delegation to get Reagan on the GOP ticket in 1976 and why Reagan called Paul a conservative’s conservative.

Are any of you like me and really, really missing Ronald Reagan about now?

Quoting Scott in Reply 14:Why should my vote go to a person, regardless of political affiliation, [who] does not espouse my worldview? That is the same as denouncing my belief, my faith, my God.

Scott, I don’t think your words are especially well thought-out here, and I’d like to give you a chance to clarify them. Did you really say that casting a vote for someone with whom I do not share a worldview is an act of apostasy?

G. F. McDowell,
My words are especially well thought-out. I appreciate you giving me the chance to clarify them.

During the primaries so-called “evangelical” so-called “Christian” voters had two candidates who made their faith a part of their up-front conversation, those being Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. These two are not upstarts both having an honorable legacy of leadership.

Now that the media has all but taken the convention process out of the picture by swooning over themselves in declaring McCain the obvious choice, the same “evangelical” “Christians” now want to jump on the bandwagon to throw their support to McCain for one reason — defeat the Democrats by supporting the lesser of two evils.

Assuming a Christian is someone that has received salvation from his sins by the blood of Jesus Christ (which is what I understand and believe) and also assuming that as such a person, one should have repented and turned from sin and evil in service to Jesus Christ, an obvious dilema occurs. Does turning from sin and evil not matter in political races or supporting evil in any form, lesser or greater, is it really ok?

Throw your support at McCain. But search the reasons why? If any of your reasoning is because of the flawed lesser of two evil ethic then I suggest that what you call apostasy is legitimate.

Does a person support Christ in every area of his walk or just in the Sunday School/Church/Seminary walks? One is real.

I’m waiting for the day when a comment like that won’t see the light of day again.

We ALL know Jesus isn’t either. But, is Jesus for corrupt sinful men swiping all the power they can and using it to further their evil deeds? No, He isn’t. So, therefore he isn’t for socialism- which is what happens in every single socialist regime in the history of the world. A slide toward socialism is a slide toward further corruption.

THAT is why we are having this debate. We do not want to see man find even more efficient ways to futher his own sin. So, the question at hand is: Is McCain leading us toward more socialism or less? In other words, is he wanting to grab more power for his own means and ends or less? Is he upholding individual freedom (from invasion of privacy, invasion of speech, income tax, emminent domain, abortion, etc) so that corruption will be far more difficult to obtain or is he a “government knows best” candidate?

Saying that Jesus is above politics is so obvious that it makes me wonder if you’re saying that with a condescending attitude. I don’t know you Stephen, but I’d be very careful next time saying things like that when people have spent a significant amount of time articulating their opinion on this message board.

Nathan, your latest post could be interpreted as being hostile. Of course, as we’ve all learned in the email age, it can be difficult to discern such things tone through typed words, so I will give the benefit of the doubt here and assume that hostility was not your intention.

I’d like to appeal to you to abide by the Said at Southern user expectations and properly identify yourself. That is probably the single biggest means of accountability we have to prevent discussions from degenerating into a flame war.

I’m not sure how to properly identify myself, so I’ll do the best I can.

It wasn’t hostile, but there is definitely emotion involved that I won’t apologize for. I do believe Stephen’s comment was uncalled for. Hushing people up and telling us that he knows something about Jesus that we don’t is condescending. I did admit that I didn’t know him, so there is always the possibility I misinterpreted, but I think his comment is fairly clear.